To be completely honest, it doesn't matter what the specific statement in spellcraft is. The Dev's have said that all magic does have visual effects unless you use an ability like the one the warlock from the vigilante playtest possessed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I should add that in 3.0 and 3.5, you needed explicitly to see the somatic component and/or hear the verbal component to be able to identify the spell.
here : http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spellcraft.htm
Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry.
In pathfinder, the sentence have been changed to "Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors."
I don't know why they changed the wording : it only makes spells way harder to identify.
You mean kind of like how invisibility already works? To say nothing of Greater Invisibility, of course. Just move around and let your summoned monsters do the work.
Hell, a sniper rogue would theoretically be capable of the exact same thing. Or anyone with greater invisibility. And they wouldn't have to nerf their spells by two levels.
Ugh, Postmonster.
(Casts greater invisibility, casts silenced confusion, moves, remarks on how yet another Silent/Still debate has nothing to do with self)
And considering how powerful casters are already, if a simple stealth check is gamebreaking, I really don't think you need this "trick" to begin with. Especially considering how much casters benefit from "the right circumstances".
No Kobold, if Silent + Still = Spells that cannot be seen while cast then there is no stealth check. Spellcraft says if you cannot see it, you cannot do it.
Stealth checks hide the caster. Nothing, in the rules, hides the spell.
Did you know, by the rules, you can Spellcraft vs a spell cast by an invisible caster? You can. Because invisibility doesn't affect the spell, by the rules, in any way.
In fact, the only way I can think of to make a spell unseen is to cast it through some kind of visual obstruction. Maybe through darkness or at extreme ranges.
You are correct. You can (sometimes) use Spellcraft on an invisible caster. The rules (once again) never state that all spells are visible though.
You have to be able to see the spell (not the caster) to identify it with Spellcraft.
No one has actually produced text showing that all spells produce visible effects.
Can you provide any example of any spell that explicitly does not have a visible effect while being cast?
You are correct. You can (sometimes) use Spellcraft on an invisible caster. The rules (once again) never state that all spells are visible though.You have to be able to see the spell (not the caster) to identify it with Spellcraft.
No one has actually produced text showing that all spells produce visible effects.
Can I provide an absence of evidence?
What a silly question.
Many spells describe visual effects. Those that don't describe them, don't have them.
Unless you adhere to the idea of "if it doesn't say I can't, then I can"?
You will not find spells stating things like "This produces no visible effect" for the same reason you won't see text like "slashing weapons don't do bludgeoning or piercing damage".
They list what the effect DOES, they don't list what it DOESN'T do.
My personal take on it is not that there are giant glowing runes but rather that there is a a magnetic attraction that draws the eye, a pulsation of power, subtle shifting of the light or even something as simple as a subtle aura about the casting (though for a particularly showy spell or if you have detect magic up, maybe there are actually runes in the air…).
Spellcraft is "Trained Only" meaning that the average commoner cannot see these signs and only notices if the caster is showing off or after it's too late. Only someone TRAINED in spotting and understanding magic can notice and identify spells without obvious visual cues. Still and Silent don't mention any modifiers to visuals so I don't apply any modifiers. If the spellcaster wants to roll for Stealth to be more subtle than they usually are, I feel perfectly justified in allowing it, but I don't allow already valuable metamagic feats to be more powerful than they already are.
Stealth seems to be the perfect fit. Spellcraft requires that you be able to perceive the casting, and Stealth is explicitly attempting to avoid or "oppose" Perception. If someone is actively observing you, a Bluff check is to be used first. It solves all the issues without changing any of the rules, in my view. Everyone's welcome to their own view, but this has worked for me so far.
I went ahead and hit the FAQ button but I do sympathize with those who would rather leave it to table variation.
My personal take on it is not that there are giant glowing runes but rather that there is a a magnetic attraction that draws the eye, a pulsation of power, subtle shifting of the light or even something as simple as a subtle aura about the casting (though for a particularly showy spell or if you have detect magic up, maybe there are actually runes in the air…).
Spellcraft is "Trained Only" meaning that the average commoner cannot see these signs and only notices if the caster is showing off or after it's too late. Only someone TRAINED in spotting and understanding magic can notice and identify spells without obvious visual cues. Still and Silent don't mention any modifiers to visuals so I don't apply any modifiers. If the spellcaster wants to roll for Stealth to be more subtle than they usually are, I feel perfectly justified in allowing it, but I don't allow already valuable metamagic feats to be more powerful than they already are.
Stealth seems to be the perfect fit. Spellcraft requires that you be able to perceive the casting, and Stealth is explicitly attempting to avoid or "oppose" Perception. If someone is actively observing you, a Bluff check is to be used first. It solves all the issues without changing any of the rules, in my view. Everyone's welcome to their own view, but this has worked for me so far.
I went ahead and hit the FAQ button but I do sympathize with those who would rather leave it to table variation.
Whether it is a pulsation of power, subtle shifting of the light or a flashing, glowing, neon arrow... is irrelevant.
Either:
YES-you can see it
or
NO-you can't.
How you describe it is just that: description. Rules-wise, you can't see spells unless the spell says so.
If you aren't trained in Knowledge: Local, and a Troll shows up... you may not know what it is... but you can sure see it.
Likewise for Spellcraft. Trained only or not, there is either a visual effect (which anyone can see, but only some can use to identify spells) or there is NOT a visual effect.
Once again (pulling out the horse-beating stick)-if the book says something happens, it happens.
If it doesn't say it happens... presumably it does not happen.
Spellcraft is only trained for recognizing what the spell is, not recognizing that a spell is being cast.My personal take on it is not that there are giant glowing runes but rather that there is a a magnetic attraction that draws the eye, a pulsation of power, subtle shifting of the light or even something as simple as a subtle aura about the casting (though for a particularly showy spell or if you have detect magic up, maybe there are actually runes in the air…).
Spellcraft is "Trained Only" meaning that the average commoner cannot see these signs and only notices if the caster is showing off or after it's too late. Only someone TRAINED in spotting and understanding magic can notice and identify spells without obvious visual cues. Still and Silent don't mention any modifiers to visuals so I don't apply any modifiers. If the spellcaster wants to roll for Stealth to be more subtle than they usually are, I feel perfectly justified in allowing it, but I don't allow already valuable metamagic feats to be more powerful than they already are.
Stealth seems to be the perfect fit. Spellcraft requires that you be able to perceive the casting, and Stealth is explicitly attempting to avoid or "oppose" Perception. If someone is actively observing you, a Bluff check is to be used first. It solves all the issues without changing any of the rules, in my view. Everyone's welcome to their own view, but this has worked for me so far.
I went ahead and hit the FAQ button but I do sympathize with those who would rather leave it to table variation.
Agreed.
If visual cues exist (i.e. you can see the SPELL) then, and ONLY THEN, Spellcraft may be used to identify said spell.
You can't roll to identify something that you can't see.
Some spells can be seen. They say so.
Some spells don't say they can be seen.
Name a spell that says it can be seen while being cast?Spellcraft is only trained for recognizing what the spell is, not recognizing that a spell is being cast.My personal take on it is not that there are giant glowing runes but rather that there is a a magnetic attraction that draws the eye, a pulsation of power, subtle shifting of the light or even something as simple as a subtle aura about the casting (though for a particularly showy spell or if you have detect magic up, maybe there are actually runes in the air…).
Spellcraft is "Trained Only" meaning that the average commoner cannot see these signs and only notices if the caster is showing off or after it's too late. Only someone TRAINED in spotting and understanding magic can notice and identify spells without obvious visual cues. Still and Silent don't mention any modifiers to visuals so I don't apply any modifiers. If the spellcaster wants to roll for Stealth to be more subtle than they usually are, I feel perfectly justified in allowing it, but I don't allow already valuable metamagic feats to be more powerful than they already are.
Stealth seems to be the perfect fit. Spellcraft requires that you be able to perceive the casting, and Stealth is explicitly attempting to avoid or "oppose" Perception. If someone is actively observing you, a Bluff check is to be used first. It solves all the issues without changing any of the rules, in my view. Everyone's welcome to their own view, but this has worked for me so far.
I went ahead and hit the FAQ button but I do sympathize with those who would rather leave it to table variation.
Agreed.
If visual cues exist (i.e. you can see the SPELL) then, and ONLY THEN, Spellcraft may be used to identify said spell.
You can't roll to identify something that you can't see.
Some spells can be seen. They say so.
Some spells don't say they can be seen.
Are you baiting me to say something like 'fireball has visible effects?" and then (oh so cleverly) responding with 'but it doesn't say _while being cast'?
Yeah... no thanks.
Fireball has visible effects, yes?
do you disagree with that?
"Fluff" isn't fluff.
If a spell describes a visual effect (Fireball, Magic Missile etc etc), then it HAS A VISIBLE EFFECT.
If you want to argue that there needs to be a clearly defined rules term regarding 'visible effects during casting' then you need to take a step back...
So my answer to your question is this:
Do you think Fireball DOESN'T produce a visible effect? RAW?
Frankly, I'm not even convinced invisible casters can exist. Has anyone ever actually seen one?
Frankly, I'm not even convinced invisible casters can exist. Has anyone ever actually seen one?
I know, right?
Are you baiting me...Name a spell that says it can be seen while being cast?
Fireball does not have a visible effect until after it is cast. Spellcraft rolls are made BEFORE the spell is cast so that another spellcaster can counter the spell before the effect takes place.
The counter spell stops that effect from happening.
That is how the rules work.
that is NOT how the rules work at all, actually.
Counterspell interrupts spellcasting, as a readied action.
If you look at how readied actions work, it's basically this:
1)you declare what triggers the readied action
2)your target does that
3)your readied action triggers, potentially preventing the action that triggered it.
It is a paradox that the rules support.
Your readied action prevents the action from happening, so really, it can't trigger the readied action... but the readied action only happens if the trigger happens, so you prevent the readied action...
If you want to debate readied actions, I won't stop you, they don't make sense.
The reason you can "see a spell being cast" is because you can: see the somatic gestures, and/or hear the verbal component. Which is why you can identify a Fireball while it is being cast, just like you'd be able to identify the Gettysburg Address based on a few opening lines. You've heard it often enough, or seen it often enough, or done it yourself, that you can say: "Ah! Fireball spell!"
And that is why, as my house rule, you cannot identify a Stilled, Silent spell. There's nothing to see or hear to identify as it is being cast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- How can Psychic Spells be identified by other casters while being cast if they have no verbal/somatic components and no Displays? Can an invisible Psychic be noticed at all?
There's always something you can see or otherwise notice. Spell-like abilities have a similar issue, but they too can be noticed.
All spells have a sensible component.
- How can Psychic Spells be identified by other casters while being cast if they have no verbal/somatic components and no Displays? Can an invisible Psychic be noticed at all?There's always something you can see or otherwise notice. Spell-like abilities have a similar issue, but they too can be noticed.All spells have a sensible component.
Not logically. This is one of those "just because" kinds of rulings; it doesn't make any sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not logically. This is one of those "just because" kinds of rulings; it doesn't make any sense.
Only in the sense that Everything in the game is a "just because". If it wasn't true then abilities like the warlock vigilante's ability to hide spellcasting wouldn't exist, psychic magic would be much much much more powerful in an intrigue game, counterspelling wouldn't function.... etc.
It makes sense. When you cast a spell, there is some sort of effect that can be sensed. Whether that's a glow or swirly fire in your palms or spirits twisting around you or whatever, it is able to be sensed.
Just because you do not like it doesn't mean the ruling doesn't make sense. Of course, you're free to continue your houserule, it's a tabletop game. I just want this discussion to end since.... it was answered ages ago.
Not logically. This is one of those "just because" kinds of rulings; it doesn't make any sense.Only in the sense that Everything in the game is a "just because". If it wasn't true then abilities like the warlock vigilante's ability to hide spellcasting wouldn't exist, psychic magic would be much much much more powerful in an intrigue game, counterspelling wouldn't function.... etc.
It makes sense. When you cast a spell, there is some sort of effect that can be sensed. Whether that's a glow or swirly fire in your palms or spirits twisting around you or whatever, it is able to be sensed.
Oh man, they're also looking at creating psychic versions of Still and Silent metamagic Feats:
We're going to have metamagic feats akin to Silent and Still spell for thought and emotion components. So yes, once those are in the mix.
That's going to re-open this can of worms!
"OK - so I'm casting a psychic spell with Masked Thought and Unreadable Emotion...""I Spellcraft it to identify what you're casting!"
"But you can't! There's nothing to identify!"
"There always something to see! 'All spells have a sensible component.'"
"Then what was the point in my taking these Feats?"
"Uh..."
"I have a player that does this and I hate it. I decided to negate the player's good idea. The player is now angry with me. Please help."
Did I get it right?
Oh man, they're also looking at creating psychic versions of Still and Silent metamagic Feats:
Uh.... they already made those. Those were in the book. Logical Spell and Intutive spell, they have nothing to do with stealth (just like still and silent spells have nothing to do with sensory effects) and do not stop the spells from being identified.
I'm not familiar enough with the psychic spells to comment, but I thought the main point of Still and Silent metamagic was to let you cast when you couldn't gesture or speak - Silenced, gagged, tied up, grappled, etc.
Yep.
Did anyone ever consider that Still/Silent Spell are not intended for stealth purposes? If they are not, then the whole disconnect between still/silent and spellcraft is a non-issue. Still and Silent Spell are guards against being unable to perform the components, not ways to "hide" what you are doing. Still Spell lets you perform the spell if you are in heavy armor or have your hands tied. Likewise, Silent Spell lets you perform the spell if you are gagged or otherwise silenced. The idea that these feats were for the purpose of stealth casting is an extrapolation on our part, not something stated, neither implicitly nor explicitly, in the rules themselves. So, it seems to me, that the solution to the issue is to discard the erroneous premise that Silent + Still = Stealth Spell and the rest of the logic will sort itself out.
Quite right.
If you had done a search for this topic and added to my thread's FAQ clicks before starting this thread, then we might actually get somewhere.
The Cunning Caster feat in Heroes of the Streets implies that it is very difficult to conceal the act of spellcasting. A person with that feat must make a successful opposed Bluff vs. Perception check to conceal the fact that he is casting a spell, and a -4 penalty is applied for each component of the spell as well as any visual effect that it might have (so, for example, a Fireball is harder to conceal than a Charm Person). By implication, without this feat you are easily observed casting a spell if you are visible when you cast it, regardless of how many components of the spell you are able to eliminate with metamagic feats or the like.
Ironically, this feat becomes REALLY good when stacked with Silent Spell, Still Spell, and Eschew Materials to get rid of the penalty altogether. If you min/max your Bluff skill, you can pretty much get away with it most of the time.
My position is that still + silent makes it impossible to determine or detect during during its casting thus rendering spellcraft checks (and countering)impossible. I think this is fair as the caster is having to use a +2 spell level slot.
And it's a position repeated on and on again in this never ending repitition of the same exact question. And we come to the same answer all the time.
Is it a valid position? Yes. Is it supported by rules text? No, unless you show text I haven't seen before.
What rules text supports the opposite pray tell? The only thing I've ever seen is the developers clarifying--in the apparent absence of any rules supporting their position--that you can identify a spell being cast even without any observable components whatsoever.
If you had done a search for this topic and added to my thread's FAQ clicks before starting this thread, then we might actually get somewhere.
Dude, the things been answered (ages ago), so it has gotten somewhere. Regardless of components there is a sensible element to spellcasting, components do not determine if a spell is identifiable.
To be completely honest, it doesn't matter what the specific statement in spellcraft is. The Dev's have said that all magic does have visual effects unless you use an ability like the one the warlock from the vigilante playtest possessed.
Have they? I've not seen them say that anywhere. I've only seen them say that you can identify a spell without any observable components.
To say it's because of floaty "game-magic" runes is an assumption, one that I've not seen supported by any official game developers.
Have they? I've not seen them say that anywhere. I've only seen them say that you can identify a spell without any observable components.
To say it's because of floaty "game-magic" runes is an assumption, one that I've not seen supported by any official game developers.
I quoted a dev a few posts up:
There's always something you can see or otherwise notice. Spell-like abilities have a similar issue, but they too can be noticed.
The only reason this whole damned situation exists AT ALL, is because some developer a while back made an ill-conceived ruling that is not well supported anywhere in the rules (and only makes sense if you make up more rules), nor by many members of the roleplaying community.
Think about it. Where were these threads before the ruling was made? Practically non-existent!
Have they? I've not seen them say that anywhere. I've only seen them say that you can identify a spell without any observable components.
To say it's because of floaty "game-magic" runes is an assumption, one that I've not seen supported by any official game developers.
I quoted a dev a few posts up:
There's always something you can see or otherwise notice. Spell-like abilities have a similar issue, but they too can be noticed.
Who said that? Your quote source is empty. Perhaps you can share a link for all of us?
Who said that? Your quote source is empty. Perhaps you can share a link for all of us?
Logan Bonner said it, which it says on my original quote (it also has the quote to psyren that it was a reply to for context). I'll try and provide the link once I get off the train if someone else hasn't already done so. Otherwere seemed to have found it quickly since he posted something else Logan said in the thread.
Here is a link to that quote.
I'll happily concede the point, LazarX, once you or someone else can show me those threads, here on the Pathfinder boards, that predate the ruling (not counting the thread where the initial ruling was made).
The only reason this whole damned situation exists AT ALL, is because some developer a while back made an ill-conceived ruling that is not well supported anywhere in the rules (and only makes sense if you make up more rules), nor by many members of the roleplaying community.
Think about it. Where were these threads before the ruling was made? Practically non-existent!
Bullocks... concealed casting threads... which this is another one, have been around us pretty much since the game opened it's doors, and if the wotc boards have not been purged yet, you'll most likely find a multitude of threads on the subject there as well.
The issue has always come down to the fact that Stil and Silent spell metamagic feats impose no penalty on spellcraft checks... and that's been the case since 3.0.
That's wrong. As folks pointed out earlier in the thread, IDing a spell in 3.0 and 3.5 worked differently from Pathfinder: the PHB specifically called out needing to see or hear the spell's Verbal or Somatic components. This rules problem is specific to Pathfinder.
Spellcraft is only trained for recognizing what the spell is, not recognizing that a spell is being cast.
Granted, my mistake. I do believe that spellcasting is ordinarily visible to people paying attention. I have no problem with people who rule still and silent spells invisible though; that's their table's prerogative.
Interestingly, even the art isn't consistent on this point. some of the art shows swirling energy and runes and what not, other just show the most obvious visual effects (fire, lightning, etc.)
Interestingly, even the art isn't consistent on this point. some of the art shows swirling energy and runes and what not, other just show the most obvious visual effects (fire, lightning, etc.)
Uh, how is that in consistent? Not every spell would necessarily look the exact same.
There aren't any rules on what spellcasting looks like,
So it is all coming from the developers then.
So it is all coming from the developers then.
You realize All of Pathfinder is coming from the developers right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it is all coming from the developers then.You realize All of Pathfinder is coming from the developers right?
Yes, but there are official channels that they should go through when creating new rules, namely, the books and errata.
If the books say one thing, but the designers say another, then you get the kind of confusion, disagreements, and chaos that we've been seeing in this and similar threads.
Interestingly, even the art isn't consistent on this point. some of the art shows swirling energy and runes and what not, other just show the most obvious visual effects (fire, lightning, etc.)
Interesting. It's as if some of the art is them casting a spell (swirling energy and runes) and some are after the spell has been cast and the effects are coming out (fire, lightning, etc.)
Like the art shows that as you cast the spell there's runes and such, but once you see the fire or lightning the spell has been cast and the effects are what you're seeing.